China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

U.S. Court Recognizes a Chinese Judgement for the Third Time

Tue, 04 Feb 2020
Categories: Insights
Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌
Editor: C. J. Observer

 

The Case of Huizhi Liu is the third Chinese judgment recognized in the U.S. and the first in New York.

Correction: 19 April 2020

An earlier version of this post said that the case of Huizhi Liu is the (potentially) third Chinese judgment recognized in the US. That’s not correct. According to the updated version (2020) of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Glob. Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., No. 12 CV 1851 (N.D. Ill. May. 1, 2015) is the known second Chinese judgment recognized in the US, which renders the case of Qinrong Qiu and the case of Huizhi Liu, respectively, the third and the (potentially) fourth. More info about the case of Glob. Material Techs., Inc. is added at the very end of the post. We apologize for the error.

Update: 10 August 2022

An earlier correction dated 19 April 2020 said that the case of Huizhi Liu is the (potentially) fourth Chinese judgment recognized in the US. That’s not correct. According to the updated version (2021) of the List of China's Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments, KIC Suzhou Automotive Products Ltd. et al. v. Xia Xuguo, 2009 WL 10687812 (S.D. Ind. 2009) is the known first Chinese judgment recognized in the US, which renders the case of Huizhi Liu the (potentially) fifth. A brief history of Chinese judgments successfully recognized and enforced by US courts is added at the very end of the post.

On 6 Jan. 2020, New York Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered a ruling in Huizhi Liu vs Guoqing Guan & Xidong Fang, recognizing a judgment made by Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, China.  The case is now going to the Appellate Division for review.

(CJO Note: We would like to thank our reader Ms. Renee M Wong, who provided us with valuable information. Ms. Wong is an of counsel attorney with the law firm of Goldberger & Dubin, P.C. in New York, and represented the plaintiff, Ms. Huizhi Liu, in this very case.)

It marks the third time for the U.S court to recognize a Chinese judgment. Prior to this, two Chinese judgments were recognized respectively in the U.S. in 2009, and in 2016 (see below).

In the case, plaintiff Huizhi Liu sought enforcement of a foreign monetary judgment in the amount of CNY 17.6 million, exclusive of interest and legal fees, that was obtained in China.

On 14 May 2018, the plaintiff commenced an action sounding in breach of contract and unjust enrichment against defendants in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County (hereinafter “the Queens County Court”).

On 4 Jan. 2019, the Honorable Leonard Livote of the Court granted a conditional dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens, only if the defendants consented to the People's Republic of China and accepted service action brought on the same causes of action.

On 31 Jan. 2019, the parties subsequently executed a stipulation, wherein defendants consented to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China as the forum designated by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against defendants before Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, Guangdong Province, China (hereinafter the “Chinese court”).

On 24 July 2019, the Chinese court granted judgment on default in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants, in the amount of RMB 17.6 million, with interest from 9 November 2017 to the date of payment at a monthly interest rate of 23. The Chinese judgment also provided that, if not satisfied within 10 days of service upon defendants’ any interest owed will be doubled, and that defendants shall pay RMB 159,800 in legal fees to the plaintiff.

The Queens County Court indicated, first of all, that “plaintiff's submissions demonstrate that the Chinese legal system comports with the due process requirements and the public policy of New York”.

Secondly, the Queens County Court pointed out that defendants, in the action before the Honorable Leonard Livote, argued that the interest of substantial justice would be best served by adjudication of the matter in the People's Republic of China, and they may not now cry foul.

Thirdly, the Queens County Court held that defendants were given ample notice and opportunity to be heard in the People's Republic of China, yet made the tactical decision to sit on their hands and allow a default judgment to be entered, even after the parties executed a stipulation consenting to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China.

Pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 5304 (b) (2), “[a] foreign country judgment need not be recognized if the defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend.” 

The Queens County Court held that “defendants' argument that non-recognition of the Chinese judgment is warranted under this discretionary ground is also unavailing. The evidence demonstrates that the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was satisfied and that defendants were or should have been aware of the pending litigation in China”.

Therefore, the Queens County Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Chinese judgment.

***

Below is a brief history of Chinese judgments successfully recognized and enforced by US courts

  • On 6 Jan. 2020, in Huizhi Liu v. Guoqing Guan & Xidong Fang (713741/2019), the New York Supreme Court Queens County recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the Xiangzhou Primary People’s Court of Zhuhai Municipality, Guangdong Province, China.
  • On 27 July 2017, in Qinrong Qiu v. Hongying Zhang et al(2:2017cv05446), the US District Court for the Central District of California recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the Suzhou Industrial Park People's Court of Suzhou Municipality, Jiangsu Province, China.
  • On 1 May 2015, in Glob. Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., No. 12 CV 1851 (N.D. Ill. May. 1, 2015), the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by Zhuhai Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong Province, China.
  • On 21 July 2009, in Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Indus. Co. v. Robinson Helicopter Co., No. 2:06-CV-01798-FMCSSX, 2009 WL 2190187 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009), aff’d, 425 F. App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2011), the US District Court for the Central District of California recognized and enforced a judgment rendered by the High People’s Court of Hubei Province, China.
  • On 3 June 2009, in KIC Suzhou Automotive Products Ltd. et al. v. Xia Xuguo, 2009 WL 10687812 (S.D. Ind. 2009), the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division recognized and enforced a Chinese judgment.

 

The full text of the judgment is available here. An analysis is also available at Asia Business Law Institute.

 

Photo by jonathan riley(https://unsplash.com/@jonathan_christian_photography) on Unsplash

 

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌

Save as PDF

You might also like

SPC Releases Typical Cases to Support Hong Kong Arbitration

In September 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released six typical cases to demonstrate its support for Hong Kong arbitration, emphasizing judicial cooperation and the recognition of arbitral awards to foster international arbitration development.

SPC Sets Standards for Punitive Damages in Food Safety

In August 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a judicial interpretation that addresses punitive damages in food safety cases, featuring typical cases to establish uniform standards and enhance consumer protection.

Authenticating Documents for Use in Chinese Courts: Apostille or Not?

The 1961 Apostille Convention, effective in China as of November 2023, simplifies the authentication of foreign documents for use in Chinese courts by replacing traditional consular legalization with apostille. Note that authentication is only required for certain types of documents under Chinese law, and the apostille process applies only when the 1961 Convention is relevant.

SPP Releases 2024 Mid-Year Case Data

In the first half of 2024, China's Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) reported significant increases in arrests and prosecutions, as well as a notable rise in retrials based on their recommendations in civil cases.

China Intensifies Crackdown on Cross-Border Telecom Fraud

In July 2024, China's Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), Supreme People’s Court (SPC), and the Ministry of Public Security released ten typical cases to highlight their intensified efforts to combat cross-border telecom and online fraud, emphasizing organized crime and emerging technologies.

China's Clean Energy Progress Report (2024)

China's 2024 white paper titled “China’s Energy Transition” shows clean energy now makes up 58.2% of installed power capacity, with wind and solar increasing tenfold over a decade, and clean energy consumption rising from 15.5% to 26.4% of total energy use.

SPC Releases Typical Cases on Foreign Law Ascertainment

In July 2024, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued its first batch of typical cases to illustrate the application of foreign laws, aiming to enhance the judiciary's understanding of its 2023 judicial interpretation on ascertainment of foreign law.